Appeal No. 2005-1130
Application No. 10/072,876
The appellants state that none of the claims stand or fall
together (brief, page 5). The appellants, however, merely point
out differences in what the claims cover (brief, pages 8-10, 12-
13, 16, 19-21), which is not an argument as to why the claims are
separately patentable. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997). We
therefore limit our discussion of the affirmed rejections to one
claim, i.e., claim 1.
Ruf discloses, in figure 7, a lamella having a downstream
end (8.7) comprising a first surface (horizontal upper surface
portion), a portion coupled to and sloped relative to the first
surface (sloped upper tip portion (9.7)), and a non-planar second
surface, (i.e., the lower surface having a horizontal surface
portion and an upwardly sloped tip portion (9.7)) located
opposite the first surface (col. 4, lines 30-37).
The appellants argue that Ruf’s horizontal and sloped
portions of the upper and lower ends of the lamella are separate
obliquely oriented planar surfaces, not a non-planar surface
(brief, page 7; reply brief, pages 2-3).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007